* page 5
"Before beginning merger talks, however, the PharmAthene Board of Directors wanted to be sure that PharmAthen "ended up with the product through the license or through the merger.""
Siga's Drapkin objected to spending money on "a bunch of lawyers". Rather, attach the LATS to the Merger Term Sheet.
* page 11 - Siga let the (merger) deadline pass. Best efforts?
October 4, Siga sent PharmAthene a notice terminating the Merger Agreement on the ground that the September 30 deadline had passed.
No merger? October 12 Pharmathene sent Siga notice that they now wanted to finalize the licensing agreement.
* page 22
Siga argues the licensing agreement was intended to be a partnership agreement.
* page 25 - the court, again, returns to the licensing agreement
The Courts conclusion:
PharmAthene has adduced sufficient facts to support one or more of its claims that Siga breached its agreement with PharmAthene as it related to the contemplated licensing agreement
True for investing and 10X that when serious corporate legal matters increase risk in a stock.
Long time Siga holders should put more effort into looking at PharmAthene as an investment regardless of the lawsuit. Serious financial problems have been holding the PIP price down at the same time that significant progress is being made with the pipeline. When it's bioterror contracts you only need two animal studies and the safety trials to be at the level of a successful phase III study for a normal drug headline valuation. PIP is at a stage that siga-246 followers should appreciate.
The Siga posting crew looks like an emotional rah, rah gang. I've got most on ignore. If anyone has some worthy negatives to post on Pharmathene I would be very interested. I'm not in love with my investments.
GLTA the small investors and traders. I still don't think Wall Street's big boyz are following Siga or PIP for their clients, too small. This is where the small investors have a serious chance of making a big return.
Thanks again cash for the posts, and links you provide. The more information one has for an investment in either, or both, the easier to base away from emotion.
I just read some of James Altucher's blog responses from the last article. Many of the SIGA longs believe that the last four years of effort on SIGA's part make the rights to ST-246 solely SIGA's. Isn't this trial to rule on whether the last four years were SIGA ignoring the fact that they had previously given up the rights, or partial rights to ST-246, to PIP when they still had their corporate hand out between Jan. 2006, and Sept. 2006?
If I do not deliver a painting that I've agreed to sell at a certain price during good faith negotiations with a buyer, and then after four years of legal wrangling that painting has increased in value 100 fold, does that quantitive appreciation nullify the legal agreement from four years earlier?
SIGA and the in-house counsel of a significant, though not controlling, SIGA stockholder, MacAndrews & Forbes Holding, Inc. (“MAF”), qualified as privileged to the extent they were for purposes of legal and not business-only advice.
*significant, though not controlling
But when may a non-party to an agreement with an arbitration clause also be made to arbitrate a dispute with one of the parties? The short answer is not too often.
This decision carefully explains the exceptions to the rule that only the parties to the arbitration agreement may be made to go to arbitration. The exceptions are: (1) incorporation by reference, (2) assumption, (3) agency, (4) veil piercing/alter ego, (5) third-party beneficiary and (6) equitable estoppel.
(5) third-party beneficiary
yes just an opinion. the facts have been discussed, debated and opined throughout almost every thread, no need to state the obvious. both sides have arguable positions in their favor. its unpredictable when its left up to the judge but in reviewing/reading almost every post, blog and citations it seems to me sigas got a better position than pip. question: what do you call an attorney with an IQ of 50? answer: your honor!